First day of monetary bargaining; stalled out on class sizes and TA training
Bargaining Update TL;DR:
We tabled our monetary proposals on Monday (i.e., the ones that cost UBC money– like wage increases, tuition, and healthcare)! Read below for details. We’re waiting for a response on most of these. We also dealt with some outstanding non-monetary items and made some progress on GAA-related proposals.
The employer is no longer interested in discussing our Education proposals around training and class size to TA ratios. Improving the quality of education at UBC – a central component of our bargaining platform – seems to be less of a priority for the employer. We anticipate that advancing these proposals will require significant pressure from our members as well as members of the UBC community.
Next bargaining date is April 27th! Stay tuned for updates :) Follow along with our proposals on our proposal tracker.
In-depth proposal updates
Equity proposals:
Equity 3: Information Regarding Deaths in the University Community and Bereavement Expansion
Status: Awaiting formal reply
In February, we retabled our proposal to the University about the importance of our membership being aware of deaths in the community and reminding members of resources available to them. The University pointed us to their HR policy, which currently does not ensure that CUPE 2278 members have access to the relevant resources. We were fortunate to have a steward at the table that spoke to the impact events like this have had on their department. After this, the University indicated they may be willing to update their HR policy to include procedures that are relevant to CUPE 2278 members. To hold them to their word, we tabled a letter of understanding that would ensure the University changes their HR policy around reporting deaths, providing details and notification of a death of a member in the community, including reference to resources, funds, and leaves available to members of 2278 and notifying the Union.
Equity 4: Student Workers as Staff (now as Monetary)
Status: Awaiting formal reply
This proposal was about ensuring that student workers have access to the same resources that other university staff can access (including reduced parking rates, software access, etc.). When we initially tabled this proposal on our first day of bargaining, the employer flagged it as a monetary item. We brought this back to the table on Monday, and are awaiting a response from the employer.
Equity 5: Academic Freedom Protections
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Here we proposed that student workers should not be disciplined for exercising their right to academic freedom in the collective agreement. The employer last time said they were not interested in additional language in the collective agreement other than a reference to the Senate Policy on Academic Freedom. We adjusted our language to refer to this senate policy under Article A 10 (which deals with discipline). We are awaiting a formal reply from the university.
Equity 6: The University Will Inform the Union About Increased Policing
Status: Preparing response
While we didn’t discuss this proposal on Monday, it didn’t make it into previous bargaining updates. After we initially tabled this proposal, the employer indicated that they aren’t interested in putting this into our collective agreement because they had already agreed to it in a labour management context. They also indicated that they would be willing to re-commit to informing the union about excessive police presence on campus. We are still discussing this proposal.
Procedural proposals:
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Changes to Articles A 22.03 Reappointment and A 22.05 Pool of Preferred Candidates (Pool) have been agreed to in principle.
The University has maintained its position that Part B of the Collective Agreement should list all constituent workers -- Teaching Assistants, Graduate Academic Assistants, and CfA Exam Invigilators.
On the definition of Department, the University has proposed a definition that, although more expansive than the existing definition, is limited to only academic units. We initially proposed that the term “department” include all units in which bargaining unit members work. Though this may seem pedantic, the term Department is referenced dozens of times and has at least seven distinct meanings throughout the Collective Agreement! We also have members who work in non-academic units including at the First Nations House of Learning, St. John’s College, and the Centre for Accessibility.
Education proposals:
Education 1: Improving Training
Status: ! Pressure required
Last time, we reiterated our proposal to set a minimum for all TA training to include pedagogical and curriculum-specific training, de-escalation and classroom management training, and equity, diversity, and inclusion training. The University on Monday told us that they are not willing to expand any specifics about required training for TAs at the university.
We don’t anticipate the university moving on this proposal without significant pressure from our members and members of the university community. Quality training for TAs is an immensely important aspect of the quality of education at UBC, affecting not just CUPE 2278 members but also the students we serve.
Education 2: Class Size to TA Hours Ratio
Status: ! Pressure required
Last time, we re-introduced our proposal in response to some questions and concerns that the employer expressed over our original proposal. This time, they indicated that they are not interested in talking about maintaining reasonable class sizes at all.
We don’t anticipate the university moving on this proposal without significant pressure from our members and members of the university community. Over the course of the previous collective agreement, we have seen continued decrease in TA hours and increased enrollment in courses. These trends not only make TA jobs more difficult, but also prevent CUPE 2278 TAs from serving our students as they deserve.
Monetary
Monetary 1: Wages and Pay Equity
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We proposed our new pay scale system. Rather than our current 5 tier TA system (UTAII, UTAI, GTAII, GTAI, STA), we proposed a simplified three-step system. You can read more about the proposed system here.
The employer raised some questions about this system, including whether the transition to this system would necessitate differently sized wage increases for undergraduate and graduate students during the first year of our new collective agreement.
In response, we emphasized our commitment to seeking equal pay for equal work. Many undergraduate teaching assistants perform identical jobs to graduate teaching assistants, with the only difference being their degree status. Our proposal is intended to address these inequities.
We also discussed how we will calculate general wage increases for our members. We are still working on crunching these numbers and expect more back and forth on this at a later date.
Monetary 2: Health and Wellbeing
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled a proposal asking that the employer allow members access to the staff health plan and pay for member health premiums, dental contributions, MSP fees, and the extended health plan provided by the University. We additionally proposed that if a member has an appointment during any portion of the academic year, they can enrol in the employer’s dental and extended benefits plan at their own cost for when they’re not actively employed as a member. Members have expressed that our student health plan is not sufficient at covering our needs, leaving students in precarious financial situations to decide between taking care of basic living costs and their health. This proposal is designed to better support our members’ wellbeing, health, and quality of life.
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled a proposal that the University provide tuition waivers and reimbursement for any associated tuition and student fees for all members of our bargaining unit. This was a top priority of our bargaining survey sent out to our membership last year. As tuition is a condition of our employment as students, year by year, tuition increases represent bigger and bigger cuts to our paychecks.
Monetary 4: Ending Minimum Funding Clawback
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled a letter of understanding aiming to end the inclusion of bargaining unit work in graduate student funding packages, a practice we refer to as “minimum funding clawback”. We seek that no more than the salary equivalent of a full GTA II (~$14.6k) of bargaining unit work may be included in any graduate student funding packages.
Funding clawbacks are used inconsistently across departments at the University to reduce graduate student funding packages. This practice differs greatly between faculties and even departments within faculties. For example, while the Department of Chemistry offers a minimum funding package of $27,000 for PhD students, PhD students may still be required to pursue a full TA position (making approximately ~$14-16k) as part of their minimum stipend package. However, in departments such as the Department of Mechanical Engineering, TA salaries are not part of graduate students’ stipend packages and constitute take-home money for graduate students on top of their stipend. Thus, minimum funding clawbacks create inequities of pay amongst our members while also keeping graduate student wages well below the livable wage in Vancouver. This is an issue that our members continually fight for and was a top priority from our bargaining survey.
As a reference, we presented language proposed in a 2024 Letter of Intent from CUPE 3902 at the University of Toronto, which has language protecting graduate students’ funding packages from being reduced by the University including their bargaining work salaries as part of their funding.
Monetary 5: Work Related Expenses
Status: Awaiting formal reply
On Monday we tabled a Letter of Understanding concerning members that are required to reside outside of metro Vancouver, which states that the University shall reimburse food and accommodation costs. This letter also includes options for the University to provide or reimburse members for late night transportation costs when reasonable.
Monetary 6: Guaranteed Union Office Space
Status: Awaiting formal reply
This proposal is about ensuring that the Union has access to a physical office space paid for by the University. We currently rent an office from the GSS, but you’ll find that student workers at other universities, like our comrades at CUPE 3902, are paid by their university to be able to rent a space near the University of Toronto. Our membership has grown in size and engagement over the last few years, and our executive, leadership, committee members and staff will continue to rely on a central space to organize as we continue to grow as a Union!
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled two proposals that cover Exam Invigilators at the Centre for Accessibility on the topics of paid breaks, minimum staffing levels, and shift premiums. We want to ensure EIs receive paid breaks scaled to their shift length (one 15 minute break for a regular shift and two 15 minute breaks for a double shift), with the inclusion of a paid 30-minute lunch break for shifts over 5 hours. We also want to ensure that our members at the CfA are well supported in their work by establishing a minimum staffing amount, which entitles members to extra pay if it is not met. Staffing concerns were a high priority for members who work at the Centre for Accessibility and the staff minimum and shift premium language seeks to resolve this.
Component 2 - English Language Instructors
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Component 2 members (English Language Instructors) had their first day of bargaining on April 17. Top priorities for these members include job stability (particularly while on layoff) and severance protections. The English Language Institute has seen a decline in enrollment since COVID, and many instructors have been working on rolling layoffs for the last few years.
We also tabled Component 2 monetary proposals alongside Component 1 on Monday. In addition to general wage increases, Component 2 is looking to expand the definition of layoff so those working on short-term recall contracts would have more protections, and that all members would receive severance in the case that the English Language Institute closes.
Additionally, Component 2 is looking to open the top of its pay scale to all members. Currently Steps 11 and 12 of the pay scale are only accessible to those with Master’s degrees. While this isn’t a concern for new employees (a Master’s degree is now part of the minimum qualifications), some long-time members started before that was a job requirement. In recognition of their long service and years of experience, we are proposing that these members also get access to the top of the pay scale.
GAA Proposals
GAA 1: Continuing GAA Negotiations
Status: agreed to/awaiting formal reply.
From October 2024 to June 2025, we had variance negotiations with the employer regarding the newly organized Graduate Academic Assistants (GAAs). These negotiations concerned how to apply the existing collective agreement to GAAs. These negotiations previously broke down because the employer insisted on a definition of GAA that would exclude many GAAs from joining any union. While we are still addressing this issue at the BC Labour Relations Board, we have now continued negotiations on the GAA contract. The employer has now formally agreed to include all these previously agreed changes in the collective agreement. For more details on the agreed-to sections of the GAA agreement, we plan to post a more in-depth blog post in the next few days.
Status: Agreed in principle
We proposed to re-write language in Article A 2.01 that outlines which workers are covered by our collective agreement. Our proposal replaces a long list of job classifications with a reference to our Union Certification, which is a legal document issued by the Labour Board that outlines which groups of workers our union represents. After some discussion we’ve agreed to this in principle.
GAA 3: Work of the Bargaining Unit
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time, we brought a proposal making it clear that people’s status as members of the CUPE 2278 bargaining unit (i.e., union members) should be defined by the type of work they perform, not the source of where their salary comes from. This has been an ongoing issue where people whose jobs are funded through the Work Learn program but who do TA or GAA-related work have been excluded from union membership.
The university saw this proposal as an attempt to expand our bargaining unit; we clarified that this relates to people whose work is already covered by our collective agreement but have been misclassified. We re-introduced this language, this time in a Letter of Understanding.
GAA 4: Allocation of Hours and Work
Status: Greensheet
This proposal pretty much just unified and simplified the naming scheme for the “Allocation of Hours” form. Because GAAs have joined the union, having multiple different forms can be confusing for members. Moving forward, these forms will be called “GAA Allocation of Work” and “TA Allocation of Work”.